>> we need room on the west side for the penthouse so start of offset not on the railing but we need to have at least four or five feet for the door to swing into the roof deck. >> if i read your notes are correct west is west, east is unchanged and house is here and north of there. >> the issue at hand the proposed agreement shifted the location of that door to the west by four or five feet. >> i can only look at what i have in front of me that is what i comment on the issue of privacy is important if you could give me the drawings. >> i can't see it here. >> the drawing is on the

screen. >> so there's the drawing you see the penthouse was moved further east now and so it actually, the door lines up with the west side of the roof deck i'm asking for is consistent with what you're proposing with 3 modifications because the four feet four feet reduces the roof deck by thirty or 33 percent 3 feet on the west, 3 feet on the north and 4 by 4 foot section at the door to allow someone to leave the penthouse and assess the deck. >> if you would draw it please i can't see that to comment.

>> she wants a setback on the west side exactly. >> along with the chimney yes. >> i drew it wrong 3 feet on the north side. >> what is the reason for 3 instead of 4. >> just because it reduced the rjd by 35 percent a big reduction so i prefer it to be 25 percent that is what i'm proposing instead of the 3 feet if the offset the fire code is a nice number for the setback. >> i'm comfortable with that.

>> as a seconder i'll agree the setback will be 3 feet from the north and west sides if i'm correct. >> that's correct i thought you were worried about the odds my reference to the arrow shown the drawing. >> okay commissioner vice president richards and i guess mr. lindsey want to make sure have you looked at the calculations the reason i'm asking we've done an audience audit inform september but permanent a training issue and 2 of 5 fails the audit there was indeed an audit i want to make sure your comfortable with those calculations. >> commissioners i did not personally review those. >> as motion i'd like to ask

mr. lindsey to double check the calculations to make sure it is not a demo. >> i'll accept that as part of motion. >> that's fine it looks okay to me. >> call the question. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there's there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project as proposed with the modifications to the roof deck only and the railing associated with the roof deck to set it back from the edge of the building 3 feet own the west and north side and for staff to confirm the doma demo. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 12

27th avenue an abbreviated discretionary review. >> one more then we have - >> good afternoon again commissioners i'm david lindsey department staff. >> the project at 156, 27th avenue the major alteration of a single-family home with the replacement felt front facade a horizon addition at the rear and a new fourth destroyer if so at an monument to demolition and pursuant to the planning code 317 the zoning administrator reviewed the project and authorized the administrative de facto demolition that the subject property is not financial assessable housing the subject property on the east side of 27th avenue between lake and el camino the outdoor

richmond neighborhoods the 1907 house is on a one hundred 20 feet deep lot the zoning is rh1 bedrooms on the rage from two to four stories buildings on the opposite are two and 4 stories the house immediately north of the subject property a 4 story building and the one immediately south is a 4 story the department received 9 attorneys letters in support and 6 in opposition the dr requesters are who own the house immediately south of the subject property their concerns are that the project is not consistent with the residential design guidelines with respect to light and air and it's impacts on the

mid block open space following the submittal of the dr requester the residential design team reviewed it in the advisory committee of the dr request and included that the okay with the guidelines and didn't exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the proposed setback of the rear addition along the property line is adequate to have adverse impacts to the department of human resources property it is appropriate setback from the front to rear i'll point out since the dr was submit the project has been revised further in an effort to address concerns the departments supports it and recommend e recommend the commission not take dr and go as revised. >> dr requester. >> i'm going to use the overhead if i can please.

>> once you start speaking sfgov there you go. >> good afternoon planning commission i'm marshall schneider an architect working with the neighbors with the project proposed the neighbors of the proposed project building there are several reasons that warrant commission bans the commissioners, on that motion related to the design decisions let's examine the size the average size on or of the buildings the same zoning is 2 thousand plus square feet open an average lot size and the largest this on the block is currently 3 thousand plus and the lot size of 3 thousand square feet the proposed project

is 5 thousand plus the promoted project is one .5 the size of largest structure on the block and that is more than double the size of average structure per historical planning commission is not grounds for the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances we believe the sheer size the project coupled with the design that the project sponsor neatest the exceptional or extraordinary the first, the decision the project sponsor made to leave the exit facade massing and this is you think changed to the depth of the 23 and a half feet we believe there was done in an effort to minimize the chance of the neighbors oscar pistorius that just to be clear the sponsors is not keeping the

structure for historical value but demolishing the exit structure and rebuilding the home keeping the front unchanged and keeping the new project like a contemporary home with any argument the facade is urban changed is not the case the front facade is setback 4 feet from the property line and consists of two stories over a facade with scale and width and has the character of a cottage by rebuilding that is it currently standards they've had to shoo horn in the building from the property line to push the extraordinary large mass indemnity rear of the building has manifested itself

that unnecessarily blocks the neighbors to the mid block open space and has light and air blockage for the neighbors on the north and south diagram showing the north side. >> the second skyline design that has commissioners, on that motion and goes counter to residential guidelines is the third story over the second in an effort the sponsors increased the feej. >> reducing the access is light and air the mid block open space. >> the third design definition the sponsors have placed a roof

deck the drawings originally distributed july 9, 2014, as part premraigs operation process it had a pinched roof between the preapplication and the 311 notification they fastened the roof 10 inch with the mass and limiting more dramatically 9 he north and ventilation the mid block open space and the 311 has a enward angle into the master bedroom and the property to the north and finally the decision to rebuild - >> of the existing cottage and the replacement thought that deep into the block than otherwise would be the general accepted setback of the 4 floor is 15 feet from the

4 floor were moved forward approximately 7 and a half feet not leave room for the fourth floor roof deck that will not have privacy issues in closing the neighbors realize and, sir unfortunately your time is up. >> you have a 2 men rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr n rebuttalt the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr in rebutta at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr n rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr un rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr tn rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr en rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr rebuttal at the ends. >> calling the speakers that are in support of dr requester. >> you're in support of dr requester correct. >> just to be clear any - yep. >> good afternoon, members of planning commission i own the

property with mycy this is the property directly to the north that is the property project my sister and i are opposed to the project on 27 avenue it will plain clothes the southern light from your bedroom and some of the windows of portion that projects in front of the window is two-thirds as deep and sits on the propelling our sunroom is setback 5 feet 6 inches and a comfortable setback from the proposed project will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the residential guidelines in fact, our neighborhood to the north hesitate a setback between the property we're also opposed to the deck on top of the third story this deck expends 6 feet commissioner hasz plus above the

property with a view into our property and he master bedroom to the property of the south is he feel the intrusion is extraordinary and height and placement deep into the property makes it unacceptable we feel the comfort women force the discretionary review naming shifting the 3 and 4 floor and changing it back to a sloped roof allows the burning to take advantage of their property that is sensitive to their assess so light and air and allows for private architecture is about light why dot newcomers get to take away light needs to be shared thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> any other speakers in support of dr requester. >> good afternoon

so my name is franklin we are concerned about the size of the project but more prairie the back of the building we specifically it intrudes the mid block open space this is something that we are with concerned about because the light but also, because of the fact that the front of the house it obviously not as big as the back you know look like which is something that it is concerning not balanced like it should be especially on the front of the house because the houses the neighborhood as you can see the front actually in a way is matching the overall space of the house this is something that we've been concerned with greatly

the other thing if we have the future development the neighborhood and stop putting some interesting concerns to the other neighbors so we also wondering why we didn't have closed neighbors approving i'm okay with the project not here. >> jonas. >> as you can see right here you have like the green - so the people approved for this projects are not close to the new construction and you know this is something that is kind of puzzling is that because of

the house looks at small they don't see the overall space it is bigger what the front looks like that's pretty much what i have. >> okay. thank you. >> any other speakers support of dr requester? okay. seeing none project sponsor

>> okay you want the computer? huh? >> can we connect to the power point. >> sfgov. >> members of the audience. >> speak into the mike please. again dear commissioners and my name is vincent's with the studio we dare putting forward the plans for the chris family chris is behind me the subject property as you can see there is currently a single-family residences surrendered by two very large neighbors to the fte it a 2 a story building and to

the south the dr requester a 3 story single-family home with viewers the golden gate bridge and the scope of the project is vertical with two addition the proposed project we've heard is consistent with the residential guideline under gotten extensive review from the planning department with the backyard that is 45 feet along that services the mid block open space. >> should i just - >> excuse me. looks like the this may not be rendering so

i'll switch to the overhead overhead please thank you. >> the two slides are not conspirator representative maybe i can get a little bit nor time switch to technology i'll continue in saying we believe that the building massing is average compared to the immediate neighbors i want to point out the project is also be mind mindful of the environment it is recessed from the front property line this slide we see the property

envelope shown in below the dr requesters in dash line and the new member that in gray the background i believe those slides is in scale and compatible with the immediate neighbors the neighbors to the north and the story above or proposed top floor and pop out in the rear the dr requester has a 3 fully built floors and a roof deck on top over the long period of time several mergers with the dr requester and other neighbors and numerous remedies under the process

for instance, this is where we started at the neighborhood preapplication so the dr requester expressed massing concerns the original pitch we had was, of course, the one in front was removed and replaced point out that the angle that the pitch roof we saw in an earlier slide was not correct that was the angle the pitch roof so 345u we replaced the roof and instead as partial deck with glass graurlz it was also discuss at the meeting the deck railing will be setback 6 feet from the property line to protect the privacy we believe we provided the setbacks to anytime misses the light and air

and privacy and two and three in the slide are setback 3 feet if the dr requester we don't propose a roof deck last week the dr requester has on the top if windows facing the dr requester to protect their privacy in the market-rate bedroom. >> sir, your time is up. >> even if we had a had to switch to technology. >> sir people get the same amount of time. >> speakers in support of project sponsor. >> game-changer again commissioners and members of the public i'm star child's with the libertarian party of san

francisco i support the project i would urge you with all empathy with the neighbors to deny this with the commissions i thought a pot farm not a hog farm i'll be happy to have a pot farm but willing to make that sacrifice of getting r79 for property rights it didn't always workout you about the long run that work outs manipulative better for more people than under the current system if i it had had that problem being a vegetation if i can reach an accumulation but everyone has the right to build and the foundation in this case for example, the neighbors that don't like the development looking at the plans i can understand that is looking boxy

but you know they can say to the project sponsor well, if you go ahead and build this against our worries about he'll build something bigger on our property and have every right to do so and all parties having you know an equal opportunity and right it creates a situation neighbors have reason to talk to each other and get along instead of trying to get the government to beat up on each other and at the neighbors expense to once again i'm here to ask you to you know pay attention it the ownership and you know the previous recognizes they benefit everyone someone ownership a 5 or $10 million mansion or someone on the street ownership their carts or ticketed for more than sleeping on the streets e this is different aspects of property

rights i hope you'll keep in mind. >> any other speakers in support of the project sponsor. >> okay. if not dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you i want to diagram - and just maybe pick up where i left off a little bit are by think in closing i'd like to to say that the neighbors on the prestige releases that parcels get redeveloped in this case overarching design decisions as outlined sfgov go to the

overhead please i don't know if i get a little bit extra times it's okay if i don't basically because of the design decisions i want to touch on that overflow room that was submitted to planning always as vertical and horizontal addition in looking at introduce the plans i recognize the calculations are incorrect and was resubmitted as a new project demolition and reconstruction so in closing we realize the prompts get redeveloped we want to come to some - the red areas are the portion we're asking the project applicants to change 6 and a half feet at the back of

the third story the fourth floor gets pushed forward not - this is what the project looks like i've been not asking them to keep it a cottage but ask them to make several minor commissions to make the project more friendly to the neighbors to the north and south thank you. >> okay project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> i think i want to say if not obvious this is all about reviews and in an effort a goodwill effort we offered to lower our roof and minimize the parapet to protect.

>> i'm sorry to interpret if people you can't stand in front of the doors you'll cause a fire hazard in this you're here for the 2:30 calendar we'll be taking a break it won't start immediately you'll have time. >> i'm aware of that thank you. >> you can precede now, sir. >> yes, sir. he was saying we actually did a goodwill effort to protect their views the design is about further protecting their views we believe that the compromise we've proposed is our financial hardship we took on in compromising our own design we lowered the ceilings heeks and the less than desirable that planned but i want to point out

after the dr was filed we continued to provide more accumulations by moving our stairs 3 feet away from the property line and this is impacted the quality of our lower level and reduced the main deck and lastly i'd like to point out that two neighbors that spoke other than the dr requester has a story above the allowable height we're below that a large property sustain a much larger home we feel what we propose it very reasonable and yeah, we have done considerable outreach meeting with the neighbors on both sides and the dr requester was willing to compromise yet we have received 9 letters of support if

neighbors around and they are included in your packet we appreciate your time and respectfully ask you to approve the project as reviewed. >> approved by the planning department thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> public hearings is closed commissioner vice president richards. >> a quick question for the architect throughout the entire presentation what jumped out was your diagram with the red i'm sorry your diagram with the brown showing you what you're asking for pushing balk want me to put that back up. >> please. >> can you explain that to us again, please. >> sure you're interested at the third story. >> what your asking for are

the portions the project in red the third story is over the second floor and it is 22 feet almost the whole width we are asking that portion of the house be pushed back approximately, six and a half feet to align with the full width wall of the neighbors i have a pointer. >> okay. so 22 feet times 6 we're looking at 1 hundred and thousand more. >> what's the other thing you're asking for . >> i'll use this if i can. >> so because of decisions to leave the 22 feet, 6 inch portion of the house at the fronts as it is they have made the decision not

to take the 4 floor and may we have that moved we're asking the fourth floor it sets back and leave the square footage the same but ask them to slide that deck that sits over the third story back to aligns with the deck on the property the back of the deck on the property to the south there is not this right now - the back portion of the deck is 18 and a half feet from the back wall of this neighbor that deck standing on this deck a direct view into the master bedroom we feel is not necessarily if they take that they can move the deck and this

site line becomes better. >> so you're asking the third story to come back 6 inch feet. >> how far the railing on the roof are you asking to be pushed back. >> the i mean, if you push it back to the wall you're creating it's actually 6 and a half feet back. >> we're asking for to can i change the diagram quickly here? >> yeah. >> please. so i can do it i don't have the drawings with me.

>> right. >> but if it top floor moves back 7 and a half feet we're asking that the deck be made slightly smaller than that is now we asking that the front portion of their deck align with the south property. >> you don't know how many feet from the end of the building? >> from the which building i'm sorry. >> if we pushed the 6 and a half feet back and the railing wouldn't be right there according to the way you're asking pushed back. >> if it is 18 minus approximately, six feet from the new back of the third story. >> so okay to align with the deck on the south neighbor. >> okay so i guess project sponsor quick question.

>> please. >> i'll make the square footage 44 hundred this is not what you'll see the plan not apples to apples that's the first i've seen that. >> 45 hundred square feet. >> we're down to roughly one and thirty square feet and no loss of skuj to 7 feet and the deck railing that's another 7 feet from the end of the third story we're almost there. >> yeah. one second we left the 45 percent backyard a big backyard. these types of properties the house is large better than our house despite what the representation was from the back of the house you'll have a real impact think

any kind of light from and view from the north and the house to it was built specific to take advantage of that >> is there anything the list of that you can live with? >> understand we're trying to understand how to whether we want to make any more i'll asking you to volunteer the 3 your willing to do. >> we feel we've made so many accommodations only petted with more dances the way they surveyed the neighboring properties including the ones on both sides but the subject property and we've already proposing a 6 feet volunteer

setback of that deck away from their property to protect their privacy basically, what they're trying to propose something that wipes out their views in order to protect theirs. >> the views wiped out on the four story. >> commissioner antonini i'm defer my position to commissioner moore. >> if i can phil's. >> is that acceptable. >> would you like to speak now i want to pick up on what commissioner vice president richards says and ask that perhaps i want to try and obvious and put it into more in line what we relate to if i hear you correctly and we're trying to hold the building back it the pop out of the one 46, 146 avenue neighbor

it's is it fair to say that building while the demolition or whatever is okay. it is oversized to the extents it starts to interfere with other things for instance, for example, if we look at the third story and 3 bedrooms that he look like a master bedroom there isn't enough room to going back to the comment to pull the building back to a demising line that aligns with the notch of the pop out it means a 6 foot pull back by which the deck is by which the deck above above end so the third story is pulled

back and the deck rise on the floor above dribble and since the building has already loves terraces is there an intelligent to do other rooftop deck those are my comments to give more a reference how to pull the building back. >> thank you. >> pop out is a common demising line and the notch the deck ends up and the bedrooms slightly come in and just not a loss of qualify but dwooek bathrooms absence there is a lot of extra space and probably be as much as i'll say but somewhat response to the observation that the labor is unbeknownst desirable like a birdhouse i

think we're bringing to back to the family of other buildings and still a large very, very super sized building. >> thank you. >> commission thank you for your patience commissioner hillis. >> i move to take dr and setback. >> the railing comes back. >> is that a motion. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he agree with the change i have a couple of things to comment on i know whatever we have buildings that are windows are being replaced the city is restrict to make sure the windows are in keeping with the windows that were there in at context but united states double windows are e and the windows are case i'm not sure if their wood or not and not victims in

keeping with the windows that were there before those are all the sorts of things that make a house looks like it belongs and which was built in the 1910 to 1925 i'm guessing approximately so i'd like to see you know some kind of work on this facade to use the same materials and the same appearance they've guarantee done a job but no reason to change the materials and not looking like it did before that's the first one i'll include the staff recommendation and also the motion to work on that i recognize they've made compromises but agree what was proposed in this motion did this motion will you the project sponsor to move some of the massing further forward because they have a 22 and a half inch

setback on the front could they shift it to the front if they choose to? >> what i heard is effecting the third story. >> so the deck on the top. >> maybe i should ask the maker of the motion is lou that to hispanic repeat motions. >> that's not i see as necessary. >> maybe i'll ask the dr requester if you guys have any objection yeah. one of the things you said to move that forward a little bit. >> i'm having a hard time hearing. >> i'm trying to question the exact motion i don't see too much harm if they want to keep 9 room size but that's not the motion made. >> i'm not sure i understand the motion it sounds like we're a talking about the front

facade. >> right. >> a more traditionally treatment we're talking about sliding the third story in 6 and a half feet are we including sliding the third story floor. >> but the deck was - you don't have a third floor. >> the line the deck will move back 6 and a half feet from the believe the question was - >> well, i he was asking you earlier testified you didn't mind the massive moved towards the front of the house. >> i guess we feel comfortable they take the four story and slide it forward but if you're talking about that four story and adding for size to the house. >> no. we're making it smaller off the back. >> is if you're reducing the size the back we're comfortable

that's what we're proposing keep the size the top floor the same and slide that forward. >> thank you. i'm in favor of the motion i mean, i kind of would ask the maker of the motion if you have any objections to them being able to move that forward and make up the 6 square footage they lose off the back. >> no. >> i am not i'm comfortable with the motion as is. >> okay. the maker and second err not comfortable so that appears to be the motion. >> commissioner vice president richards and. >> quick question for the architect and project sponsor on a-1 the prospective of the new building - >> shows windows with solid plate fwlas with no opening up and down or in and out.

>> right as imagined. >> though do they open. >> adjacent like this. >> oh, like a door okay. thank you. >> may i perhaps speak to what is proposed. >> windows. >> no on the motion that. >> no thank you there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and set the third story back 6 feet 6 inches on that motion commissioner antonini. >> and also. >> is four story pull the deck back to meet the notch of the joining building. >> okay. by pulling back the clarification the railing on the four story on the edge of the new third floor location. >> okay come back on the -

>> i think we'll work with the staff on the treatment of the facade being replaced. >> okay. >> and for staff to look at the treatment of the facade on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to zero. >> okay. the commission will take a break appreciate all the members of the public coming to 2:30 the agenda it is 2:30 certain meeting that the next item won't start earlier than 2:30 those commissioners have

been sitting here and take our lunch break according to my iphone about 325. >> the members of the public there is an overflow room made to accumulate additional people in room 416 you'll be able to hear and see the procedures when your name called walk down the hall to okay. good afternoon welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing regular hearing for wednesday, january 20, 2016, any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do

state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off at your 2:30 calendar items 13 ab for case numbers and 2014 plus the avenue bonus program the general plan amendment and planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners gil kelly director of the citywide planning tutor adjusting the hearing time i want to just briefly frame the presentation with a presentation a brief one frame the issue again and give you an update we've had a number of community meetings and amendments it the program that all to just clarify

for you and you audience before we get about the public comment portion and as part of presentation introduce two other people to make brief remarks johnson from conner johnson if supervisor president london breed's that will clarify the los angeles about an important amendment to the legislation and jeff bucking will i from the mayor's office to reiterate hospital this fits into the mayor's overall program to produce affordable housing the city and open up for public comment and come back and answer questions so i just wanted to step back a step and remind you of discussions in those chambers around the citywide particular thing longer rage overarching programs the first is the

executive active and adversity the notation of equality in san francisco ought to be a place of people in all nngz and so forth we want to get clear on the state of housing and the trends coming at us and so forth i'll remind you from those discussions you sort of put those issues both 3 bucket one was how to produce more new permanence affordable housing, how do we preserve the existing affordable housing stock and third how we work with the regional partners to share the burdens and benefits of this growth while we're working in those last two columns this particular program fits into the first bucket how to produce more permanently affordable housing this is not a panacea or

response to the entire affordable housing crisis but one of the tools we'll need to engage and i'll remind you this notion was out of the mayors task force on housing in 2013, the things the list of things to work on to achieve that tool so why not hit the first slide if we can very specifically can that particular a program ether the period of 20 years produce around 2 thousand low and moderate income units permanently affordable and produce in addition that middle-income units around 3 thousand so 5 thousand units not address the market-rate production in the city whereas the existing controls on

you'll see the filter that get us down to the narrow scope of that project will produce in that same geography and same template nine hundred low and moderate units the low and moderate as well as the middle-income prediction that is the goal piece it is important to remember that. >> g before we get into the sort details i wanted to let you knows we were last in december with you out to the community in a whole series of working groups forums and district meetings the district he meetings have been well attend and we have actually, two more scheduled no february between now and the continued date should you continue this matter to the april meeting we'll have 20s

those two meetings to engage and received a whole host of questions understandably about clarify what is the intent of the program and are those the right kinds of trade offs here the trade off really is essentially allowing increase the density and in many cases heights up to 2 stories in trade for more affordable units this has argument an both sides that should be the focus of this conversation by i wanted to dispel some information out there that kind of was catching fire own some of the community blogs and so forth that was akin to provoking a set of redevelopment akin to what occurred for example, in the western edition and others locations the 50s and 50s by

comparison that is in the event on the other hand, to be a focused thing not exactly which sides want to take opportunities but the way it is trader with the prohibition for limitations and with sort of the minimal financial things possible it is an important in fill it is defused or disexperienced we want to clarify that i think that some of the discussion around wholesale demolition and rebuilding of quadrant of the city is pretty far from the proposal envisions but we want to make clear and closer set of trade offs that out to be the focus of our dates we've heard principally we've forwarded you

up to 50 queasy we'veer heard similar in nature 50 and we have promised to the public we will not only post their questions we've heard on the website but prepare answers for each of those to bring forward that to you and some of them deserve clarification go between now and the continued meeting i want to address a few of these today, the first around rent control the beginning that that proposal included the possibility that should a rent-controlled unit needs to be replaced with a permanently affordable market-rate? the density bonus by the way, law we've have substantially removed that provision of this program would not allow you will not be eligible for this program we

need to remove or demolish a rental unit and that's been an amendment it the mayors was plan and a friendly amendment on the part of mayor and the other co-author of the legislation supervisor tang go in a moment i'll call up conner johnson that will clarify the language there is questions around a permanent or temporary provision so on and so forth. >> so a lot of issues that came up around design obviously those can you please the previous discussions here those probably boiled down to issues about a scale jump in mid block situations from were there might be four story to a 6 story building for example, and what that looks like and then the

flip side what happens to the open space and light and air the middle of the block those are both important considerations and we have asked our consulting architects to do work with us to visualize and come back and come back to you the a future meeting those are understandable concerns about the project and again part of the basic trade off you're considering another concern we've heard about it the potential for small business displacement you've heard us is this i'll glow the filters in a moment but this generally politics to soft sites those survivalists that are either vacant or vastly underutilized a one-story

building or commercial use we want to make a dealer through there is a lot of pressure the market right now to raise rents and to when leases run out for those businesses it is hard to renew the leases if they're not owner occupied this is adding pressures to those market it is is it fair to say that is part of the trade off considering there are things we can do and working with the office of economic workforce development to offset the pain a little bit for the businesses now in most cases and well, we'll describe what those pies are as we go through the rest of the hearing it didn't mean that businesses will not be displaced none it promissory note that couldn't happen in most of locations on can he recall

corridors a replaced not a business but ways to assist those go businesses with location we can't promise those will be successful as part of trade off the next thing i've heard about the scale of the program and here i want to go to the next graphic a little bit hard 25 read this is a handful most of audience and i - >> excuse me. ma'am, from the members of the public that are in attendance the audience have this sheet as well that is really important to clarify in each of the community meetings i've been to a number of these with the staff like what is in and in and out of the program is in really, really important to clarify and hadn't always been done well in

the beginning of the meetings so we tried to put on one side of the sheet of paper what sides are eligible and not eligible for the program first of all, the projects are not about adding stories into angle existing building next door to you that's one layer auto u out of the program in terms of eligibility it has to be within the eligible zoning district we've mapped those in each the community presentations had either the city 3457 or the district map showing those eligible zoning districts these are sometimes confused with the same as all eligible parcels the eligible parcels are subsets it requires thirty percent the units to qualify for the program to be

permanently affordable those will have to be included onsite to take advantage of offsite affordable housing permissions or to pay in lieu of fees makes you i think eligible this is only about providing overseeing units onsite and by way of an important clarification that has come up those unite need to be mixed in with the market-rate not sort of all dark units but their sdrbdz evenly and 40 percent needs to be two bedroom units and some three bedrooms and in conformation con forms with the special guidelines as part of program because of concerns we've heard we put

forth some particular guidelines that accompany those applications and some of the work we'll do between now and the april meeting show how the guidelines work in practice those are things the project must have or contain what disqualifies an application if you're existing or demolishing any exist rent-controlled unit if you're comboosh a historic structure, if you're causing a significant shadow impact on public parks open spaces and the project as micro units or group housing is not eligible for this, or assistance before providing if you're meeting the income inclusionary ought it not

eligible this narrows the scope of the sites that this will apply i want to get that piece of clarification a lot of testimonies about aspects of this i want to get that on the table one way that plays out monique mohan for helping me f the district 3 map is rich that with the zones that is confused that the eligibility but take away the filters at the end of the a smaller subset that potentially takes advantage and beyond that didn't it make financial sense for an existing owner or buyer of one of these to get the density bonus, if you will, but to provide in trade thirty percent of the affordable

level and again, the financial analysis report many of the sites that makes an different but not a win fall that's how we did the financial analysis just barley enough economic incentive to justify thirty percent affordable units so i think i'll kind of - oh, many other issues but a couple of big ones that came up one has to do with with whether the state law around density bonus actually applies to san francisco on the xhoungsz with the city attorney the state law certainly applies to us as to what effects the decision makers choose to do on a project review is a different question but there's a legal matter after

accomodation with the city attorney the density bonus provision is available for people in san francisco that want to make use and by comparison that local option has hire more predictability and sort of narrowed set of benefits we think that as follows san franciscans will be more acceptable of the wide open possibility under the state density bonus whether we have enough single-family sized units questions about the process we're not changing the process all the projects come forward to you and a number of other questions which will come up in the hearing we're glad to address after the hearing today or in detail at our continued meeting

in april so we are anxious it hear after you hear the testimony what your particular questions are so we have focus now between now and the april meeting so with that, i'd like to introduce conner johnson from supervisor president london breed's who will talk to the removal the rent-controlled units piece of the legislation. >> connecticut >> hello commissioners afternoon, commissioners and members of the public thank you for being her koshgsz staff to sxhoopdz she is not a sponsor of this legislation and she has not publicly taken a position on the legislation still studying the details she is, however, a tenant in a

rent-controlled unit incidentally as i and the issue of protecting rent-controlled units i want to speak briefing about the amendment at the catalyst when this reaches the board of supervisors specifically that amendment will say the affordable housing bonus program can't be applied to properties in rent-controlled units i want to be clear the bonus program will not be able po to be applied to a rent-controlled units and now at the risk of putting everyone to speak i want to clarify there was over the course what the amendment says whener were first and i want to thank tommy for working with us and bringing to our attention planning staff wanted to talk about how the

bonus program intrarz with the rent-controlled units we thought let's codify perimeters what it studies looks like in terms of the replacement and of that nature and come back within a year that is the original language of the amendment we put out it generates confusion and understandable so is this prosecution for a year so just to be perfectly clear we've removed all that language and planning staff elected to undertake a study and not going to codify by supervisor president london breed's intent to amend the legislation on the use of bonus with rent-controlled units i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> or hang out for a little bit thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you for that

can i ask staff the version we have the packets still refers to the study do we not have the most recently versions? >> thank you, commissioner it is actually draft by deletion so i've sent the language to planning staff i wasn't aware it is not the paubltd but the exist language it shall not be applied p with rent-controlled units and the all the potential of the return will be deleted. >> thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so mr. johnson would it be possible to print a copy and give it to us today. >> sure absolutely. >> okay. thank you. >> before i sit down. >> i think that is it (laughter). >> but wait (laughter).

>> just kidding commissioner antonini and getting a little bit of exercise and i went to the give him this morning. >> and the other part of this is plied an amendment at that time, legislation when it comes out of planning and going to the board of supervisors before me and adams to whatever the supervisors pass there is a timeframe before this can be become law as it is we're dealing with today but we can certainly the staff can no response that to the recommendation that will come back to us for a final vote in april. >> sure there are procedural issues i'm explaining something you know if this was our legislation we could legislation and yet not at a board committee to put the language out the public domain and substantially

discuss it it's a i that's what we wanted to do we worked with the sponsors with supervisor tang and the mayor's office and with planning staff and have their support as well. >> sounds best this is what we vote to approve it comes to the board of supervisors for that already in it. >> that would be great. >> we've incorporated that into the speaking points under which you, we didn't want to preexempt the supervisors but we've heard this again the rent-controlled units we're asking you to vote ouch would include the provisions that eliminates the eligibility of the rent-controlled units program. >> i'd like to introduce jeff buckley i think is here to put this is in the context of the mayors issue of affordable

housing sxhukd the middle-income portion. >> i'm jeff senior advisors to marry mayor ed lee i wanted to speak first inform irate what everyone has said we support the breed amendment in its original and amended form make sure the public understands the intention of the author and the mayor to remove rent-controlled units from this program so whatever you need in addition to that we'll be happy to hear i wanted to speak about the need from the authors point of view the rational why we support this program and where i think some of the policy rational came from this oriented from a housing working group that was looking at how to speed up the affordable housing and how to

generate nor middle-income and moderate in case open income housing than the city produces this exist in a market we can acknowledge the single-family home and condos market has advances in praise price far above middle-income can afford without some form of assistance that i will say always a question how to define but for the purposes 6 that decision middle-income it no more than one 50 percent income before the mayor took office in 2011 one percent of what the city appraise in assistance went for households above one and 20 percent area income we say this the second largest classification of jobs within the city of e city since the

great recession one pea 20 to one and 50 area medium income that is behind what the minimum wage earners make question saw the jobs generated and the city's ability to assist those residents as lacking and there was a gap that gap needed to be make up and so we looked at this you know if we were able to do this solely by subsidy i'm being generous for the middle-income units that are generated up to 3 thousand unions you're basically if you do about three hundr$350 that is there what it costs for the housing for the household about one billion dollars in taxpayer financing if you look at it capping that area medium

$600 million that is not helping a lot of people far in advance of where the market it is we've seen a large gap generating jobs not jobs of public segment as well private sector and don't have the ability to provide the hours for those residents what we saw we need to do something increase the housing supply and increase the subsidies that go for the people the city so part of this program and i think we admit with the commission it still needs some fine tuning our role as commissioners is needed to help us sharpen this proclaim want i to understand for the workers in the city generating jobs we have a housing program that exists with tax subsidies we're able to

janitor one $.7 billion with local funds to help create or preserve the housing for residents of that ami level this really is the centerpiece of what when have to address the middle-income residents and we acknowledge changes that need to be made in the program the commission can bring forward ideas to look at some of the unintended circumstances of this program but i want to point out an unintended a - a consequence of not acting if we don't act we have the jobs we generated develop the ability to hire that workforce where will they live they have more purchasing power than a middle-income setting they're likely to get the housing and or flats when they

become available on craigslist even that stock is diminishing we have more demand and less supply this program a needed to fill that gap and i've gone to nearly every meeting the various neighborhoods we've he will and heard from people about their concerns we want you to sit with with those concerns and help us sharpen in advanced before the board of supervisors but not - the consequences good just effect the middle-income it also really hurts the moderate income households you're generating 2 thousand units as well as up to 3 thousand unions of middle-income there is a lot at stake we ask you consider it and that you're able to hear the

public and then make a decision in - the timing of your choosing later on so wisconsin you can give staff enough time thank you for your time. >> mr. buckly a question answer a question before their asked when you automobile area medium we're talking about the medium in san francisco we misdemeanor not san mateo and marin we designate on the city and county. >> i believe that's it 245ishg. >> i know that question has come up judge just a clarification whatever way it is correct thank you. >> i'd like to remind the members of the public that the commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. it is unnecessary during those procedures okay. thank you. >> my brief purchase purpose

was to acknowledge this and the staff who can help answer the questions it is somewhat unusual as a director to come forward and give a staff preparedness there is a storm i personally have been to in the community meetings i want to clarify what is you in and out here at the beginning i want to acknowledge kirsten who is the project manager and remains the project manager and monique mohan and paula what who is here and andy nelson that helped with the community each he lisa from the environment planning office and geena who has helped with the outreach and kevin a listening area on what people are saying and little real concerns he wanted to introduce and - so

thank you for this. >> thank you. >> did that conclude staffs presentation gil. >> thank you. >> so we did grant request for organized opposition to speak the san franciscans for community planning are you here you have 10 minutes a minimal of 3 speakers please. >> thank you my name is dpw pa the drooshg the tenants union speaking self-the solution of san franciscans so far community planning made up of 10 advocates affordable housing advocates and merchant we don't trust this no outreach from the fast track from the community participation no mergers were held until the public demand them and only to to the citizens not the input on

a real communities plan and on top of this weakens the community control removes the control that is the environmental review and ass checks and balances exist for a reason we don't understand why you think that environmental review and community impact don't matter it impacts a lot of us and we're concerned about tenants we're concerned about the consequences for tenant for the first we're hearing what the language maybe you have not seen the language that will supposed to protect tenant in rent-controlled units we're worried the planning department staff has been given overview giving presentation low market rate housing are better than that that i don't have time but

why are we discussing why is the planning commission attacking rent control the public unless a long term plan to put the rent-controlled unit on the chopping block advertised not true that nearby rent-controlled units will not be affected they develop the luxury units and sure there maybe creation of housing units but does it balance there is push and less community input and controls we have no say in this matter and that's because that will f 16th street and mission this project was property housing could you please state your name for the record, please saw a flood of people pushed out and luxury towers in one spot it is an incentive to cashier out and it

raise prices i want to talk about the rent-controlled units and anyone existing housing is urban acceptable we'll not support it what will you do with people that will displaced are you hoping they'll stick around 3 years until the units are built and finally they have a lot of affordable housing section 8 in potrero hill and western edition are you going to tear down the shiny new towers we've not been involved in the planning of the creation of this plan then in terms of your definition of affordability we don't know they make sense the price of units is out of reach you are required to build 12

percent affordable housing and you're saying we'll give you a few more unions those are people for 4 hundred and 40 percent of medium in case the mayor didn't know which area we're talking about one and 40 percent of ami is a larger area that is market-rate we can't afford market-rate that's the point with your upcomi upcoming- your refinancing market-rate housing as affordable housing two things only develops benefit and finally from the people that made this apparently there's not a plan for business is where is city life going to go our book shores or stores and rations in chinatown going to go how is city planning keeping the regular place where regular san franciscans have jobs and

community and places they can afford the goods and services to sum up i work were the tenants using everyone should have housing we the community decided to you give up some of the city's sunlight and other things to make program for the people coming into town and building for affordability we have to be convinced we'll get results and not just building short-term rentals and luxury units if we are going to give up the store literally so developers can make money we ask the commission to vote it down and come up with something with real communities input (clapping.)

>> my name is calvin speaking for san franciscans so far community planning if density was the answer to affordability san francisco and new york the info most dense cities in the united states would have the most affordable housing stock that is not quite even though case and i think that basic problem with that assumption being the organizing concept of this proposal is a reason for the curious restatements of fact and restatement of the existing policy it so characterizations the public discussion on this measures i'm quite stunned first of all, if i could have the overhead. >> sfgov can you go to the

overhead. >> the 2014 in 2014 the state founds the existing sud policy of density bonuses fully compliant with the state housing law in may of 2014 the state wrote the city saying that it's housing element described that density program an sud program which grants special use sgrinl e district for every affordable housing developer request density bonus more affordable housing is totally compliment with state law this is a year after the license number decision and 3 seven years of the pageant of the state density bonus it is curious the state will certify the line item e housing element as compliant we're not compliment with state law

the other argument that was made oddly enough our role and the public's role under the new density bonus program will be the same, in fact, the ah dp has a new section in the planning code it sets the standard instead of being necessary and desirable compatible with the neighborhood that is the dpoift standard is that the commission will facility quote quiet priority processing of these promotions secondly, the action is limited to assuring that every project meets design dsls and pass a required vbld that project meets all the criteria as opposed to as what exists our ability to turn down a project and change the number of units and the even though type and design, to change it's density this is all

given up you'll be a design panel that must pass eased certify that all criteria of the ceding code met by the project and finally, the appeal now for the board of supervisors and elected body the appeal under the new 328 to the board of board of appeals an postponed body not quite the same. >> but most importantly and stunning to me is that this program proposes to lower the housing element goals for affordability defined as those units being built and afforded by people earning 50 to one hundred and 20 percent of the medium this body adopted the sate certified the official postal city and county of san francisco to produce 46.6 percent of 50 to one 20 ami

units anything above one 20 imply the housing element is defined and market rate housing, and, secondly, we're told the mayor and his 15 best friends the community decided we need to do one hundred to two hundred and 50 compliance finally if we take into account at the affordability levels proposed we'll see 64 percent of the units in the program is aimed as latino and black and african-american communities that average far less than the number of dollars to get into those buildings. >> sir, your time is up. >> okay. >> communities planning is what we need please oppose this. >> okay.

>> there was a request by one that has been used up opening it up for public comment we'll open up to general public comment but affords those who are disabled to speak first i did not say elderly but disabled those disabled people please approach the program you'll have two minutes. >> hello commissioners my name is good evening. i'm the president coalition for san francisco neighborhoods i have attended at least 5 of the presentations done by the mayor's office of housing and community development and planning i want to recognize kirsten singer from pa of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a planning and jeff

buckley of the mayor's office of housing and community development for tackling a difficult task on a complex subject fortunately presentations kept changing and it was confusing more and more of the answer was we will have to address this issue after legislation passes or we're looking forward to some amendments the very near future which we didn't see or know of coming more confusion at this point, i'll just asking all the neighborhood activists that came here today to express her concerns of this legislation to stand not to make noise but stand many speakers will cover the areas of the concerns so no need to repeat them

the question now is can this legislation be improved to the point that there is any value in the spending of the next 60 days trying to amend that i think the answer is no it can't it seems everyone in this room recognizes the availability of the affordable housing at any income is a crisis level and there is some urgency to get that bill always working on a viable alternative i urge everyone to vote no on this legislation thank you. >> (clapping.) thank you. >> we're going to ask this chamber for the rest of the day in outbursts no yells if you want to raise your hand that is cool but fairness the room not

disrupt okay any other, disabled member i don't see any straight to the speaker cards do us a favor line up on that side of the room we'll get through this pile quickly and smoothly (calling names). >> furmdz feel free if your nam

feel free to approach the pod m podium. >> tomorrow the issue i raised is the holding capacity of the city which is highly constrained by what the city can later on in terms of affordability in terms of nature for disaster, earthquake and in terms of the economic for a highly inflated situation and effects the pricing of everything this bonus program added to inflation by boyd against the marketed that is inflate having the city to have the highest cost of housing and occupation and the highest cost of construction those are facts the city requires 200 and 80 thousands unit of affordability didn't exist no mitigation as

required the state general plan, which the city denies exists due to the charter condition and then it says we are not required to enforce the state law regardless of the situation but the fact that is a bogus bonus what is city is being asked to comment city suicide, and, secondly, the planning commission will be - as will the sentence proponents in effect no effect for litigation and it? the hands of the planning director what we have is corruption by in effect without absolute sense. >> can i make one more point.

>> thank you. next speaker, please thank you. >> my name is jordan and i'm a concerned citizen from the tender knob area i'm to say that none in this room is necessarily against the idea of density as that relates to housing i can't support this in order for the density bonus to work for everyone we were to take into consideration not the north beach into you don't mean beach like liquid fashion and not allowing rent-controlled units to be demolished not now not one year from now not ever by most importantly is 100 percent truly affordable housing and no displacement with that said we should call the bonus density program more luxury housing we

don't need any more luxury housing we don't want any more luxury housing the techie have enough luxury housing time for the 100 percent affordable housing what is affordable housing we need housing for teachers, and service workers this year provided out and commute from what we have east bay and need for the homeless disabled people transitioning out of the centers we asking can have housing if we built withholding and not 70 luxury condos i want to say that we need to not only like we need to kill this plan and come back with true community participation thank you. >> great, thank you.

>> (laughter). >> hi name georgia that's for you all prior to the meeting last week and san francisco chronicle's the reason they didn't have a meeting there were no soft sites in our neighborhood that is not true we're walking around i saw leave semi so that i don't want to highlight those buildings because the last furious in noah valley many, many single-family home have been remodel and expand they should have been declared

demolitions this is resulted in a huge high-end luxury market in noah valley now a different point many properties will be expanded the name of solving the housing problem but a phase 2, 3, 4 in the phrase of developers making a lot of money i like to know where we can get the map for the rent-controlled unit and is there a map showing the hectic housing the executive summary will not be negatively effected not saying it wouldn't be affected and a question this program only effects soft sites what is the point of all this up high on a hill it calls to me

in noah valley there maybe another ways to comply more affordable housing in california thank you very much. >> next speaker i'll call more names (calling names). >> i'll, using the overhead my name is ilene and residents the sunset park side winston church shill those who don't learn the past will repeat this is the the 1920 verse of a high-rise up the hill the department has stated this 1920

building is connecting and is respectful of his neighbors (laughter) the next photo shows how railway that is part of post card row the next photo shows the original building we saw on the site which building is respectful of his neighbors are we looking to the mistakes of the 1920s as a road map to the future if we have innovate learned that about the mistakes if the 1920s will we repeat them one years later i ask the commission to oppose those programs as stated we need to do density right and need community-based planning not developer based planning you. >> (clapping.)

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is bob tillman a longer mission property owner and owner of one of the soft sites people are referring to i'm here to say thank you i have studied this legislation in detail and in. >> of the amount of work the planning did and in. >> the political courage the body and the most difficult political environment i can possible image so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> phil mission district san francisco my desire life from what i see this is my valuable program in room 4 hundred i've been on the board

of mission housing for better than a decade we spent the last money that came from the federal government and spent money for the redevelopment agency and the money is coming from sacramento we but put in rfp and were shut out by other affordable housing providers in san francisco there is not enough money to go around how will you pay for this mr. buckly talks about money a door and it is 8 hedge fund hundred thousand dollars a door the bond and it will be 4 hundred units can the affordable housing it takes 5 to 10 years to build are you going to get 4 hundred units allow the private sector to build they'll build and you'll get the units from the trade off

is giving air for more affordable housing that's the most cost effective way to do it i trust i've seen i in action with the neighborhood characteristic i have full trust you'll do that as the board of supervisors thank you very much. >> good afternoon my name is bryan hamlin the mission i support the affordable housing bonus program i've been concerned about affordable housing i've watched friends leave for the east bay and others fields so attending the meetings and participated in protests against landlord environmental impact vulnerable people but disillustration with the approach to housing it put my, my - breaks any heart about the ability of people to remain in san francisco while the

owners have sited affordability and offering solution that worsen the problem direct action is of vitally importance but san francisco will be a boutique city for the rich and while i'm angry at so-called leaders for consisting failing their constituents i'm angry that by not allowing sufficient housing in san francisco they'll make a more vulnerable i don't have a at lease when i move probation officer oakland i'll be respectfully for anyone that doesn't look like me support of affordable housing bonus program thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors

i'd like to take the opportunity and thank you for the planning team for reaching out to the community and have a well attended people in those mergers and communities the state density bonus law is within of several california statutes for policies to promote the construction of low income housing and roach the impedes density equal social qualifies and racial difference and climatic change mitigation while preserving the characterization will replace the rent-controlled units last i checked we're in a progressive city the state of california we need progress to deflate the herself inflation i'm not protected by rent control and not making one

hundred thousand between me and my room's i listened to the c radio program and here's some of the things she said and media responses to them residents who live the housing today consider affordable housing incorrect due to the lack of housing supplies rents are higher than new york and extremely without input input from community groups the mayor's office has a board specimen have inputs into the ah bp. >> reduces the affordable housing protection not true this program projections are still suggest to the eir and ceqa process density and anti sprawl protecting the bay checks and

balances not true this program checks and balances have increased i support this thank you. >> good afternoon my name is stan hayes the president t line ph d supports housing in san francisco more affordable and assessable for all unfortunately, we can't say support this legislation as proposed here's the reaps why two, that minutes is not enough time i'll go through this quickly i urge you to look at this letter ph.d if you've innovate seen is it we're concerned? up zoning that overreaches by politically more thirty thousand parcels the affordable housing whether occur on 200 and 40 of them it fails

to apply the district 3 one of the highest density areas in san francisco the program will override and undermine long-standing zoning protections and allowing for example, buildings up to 2 and 3 stories higher than the height limits and alternates the character of our neighborhoods and threatens small businesses through displacement and short circuit long security guards by hard wiring critical decisions the planning code and delegate them by staff and weaken or liam our commissions discretion and review and community input finally given the sweeping citywide effects of this legislation particularly think historic resources in district 3 we believe that the internal revenue addendum 3 is not

accurate and a new eir is needed therefore we strongly urge the planning commission to reject the ah bp legislation as proposed today as well as the conforming general plan amendments thank you. >> next speaker and call some more names (calling names). >> good afternoon. and told me i'm paul weber a delete to the san francisco neighborhoods i'm here to talk about one item that

is the issue surrounding the availability to destroy rent-controlled units i'm basing my discussion on page 9 of the executive summary prepared for this meeting according to that section the breed amendments while commendable only repeat only repeat only apply to 2 of the 4 programs in ah bp unless that was changed since the staff prepared their memo this is recited the staff report and consistent with i've read the amendment i'll repeat is one more time the breed amendment only applies to 2 of the 4 programs now to this is just one example

that appears at the mayor's office you have heard and will hear more examples of this the only clear path to start over again and kill today, this legislation including embracing the breed amendments so we're not back here in 6 weeks urge to kill the legislation today and embrace the breed amendments so we're not here in 6 weeks thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm megan i went to san francisco and grew up the vanilla and mountain view my father was the a coast guard i have a majority i do habitat

restoration and written many things it is defines to say this will take away the safety regulations san francisco has been a country club not having tons of cash on hand i moved in with a family friend his health declined i gave my room out to a nurse he moved to a experienced garage and that rent was rays by thirty percent at that time, i would have liked some kind of middle-income housing i had no choices but to leave the city or find a better paying job i'm a tech it's awardee i'm pretty sure i'm a woman not go to tell women they can't do things

i really support the affordable housing bonus program many of the arguments against this dennis's i want to thank the planning department and commissioners for work hard on this problem. >> good evening, members of the commission and also members of the committee my name is katrina i know e, you know, i'm pretty much understanding long the as a matter of fact the property value in san francisco has increased and we're the housing crisis that has begun desperate and, in fact, this whole thing started in san francisco to down zone many areas the city

fear mongering will not solve the problem only creates more and more units this is not one that will do that and in case we need to move now and get going we can't keeping delay delay there a and keep coming up with sound bites to keep us. feeling and good on paper the reality we have a crisis that is getting worse we the day and the longer we wait the worse that will get now many have said this will effect over rent control that will not effect rent control it will not effect rent-controlled units so i strongly urge to support this. >> my name is lilly wu i'm so

to speak to how on behalf of duncan association of approximately 70 homeowners on the duncan castro hilltop in south noah valley we understand that the eligibilities for ah bp has been with the rh3 this results in one thirds of the down slopes lots to be designated eligible for extra height and density this losses 3, 4, 545 story properties one and two story homes around them are effected our concern should they avail themselves of a ah bp will effect the open space park and destroy the contour by the

planning department general plan and have traffic issues on the hilltop and it is cul-de-sacks where fire engines particular backing out and barb strollers cannot be maneuvered and biking upside down the hilltop a challenging the planning manager has assured us by no means take into account the neighborhoods like ours for affordable density they said in district 8 only one to two soft sites are feasible for ah bp we remembering ask the compression to have the planning department apply eligibility only to the said specific soft sites and not apply blanket ignite for addressed sdenlts he citywide